M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LITD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 12(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of assets decisions; - Presentations on usage of financial reporting and Finance and treasury group record management software and databases; - Treasury management strategy and guidance; and 21 22 M/s Philips India Ltd. (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd) A.Yr.2013-14 - Email correspondence between the AE and third party banks in lieu of negotiations of interest rates, loans, credit lines

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS for ₹1,13,24,797/- only. 29. At the outset, we find that AO has granted credit of TDS for ₹3,71,65,130/- whereas as per the assessee, it is entitled for the credit of TDS of ₹4,84,89,927/-. In view of above facts, we direct the AO to grant the amount of TDS

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS for ₹1,13,24,797/- only. 29. At the outset, we find that AO has granted credit of TDS for ₹3,71,65,130/- whereas as per the assessee, it is entitled for the credit of TDS of ₹4,84,89,927/-. In view of above facts, we direct the AO to grant the amount of TDS

M/S PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The claim of the Ld. AR is that the AMP transaction does not represent the international transaction between the AE’s therefore no question of determining the ALP of AMP transactions. We find force in the argument of the ld. AR in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, in our considered view

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,70,31,878 to the international transaction of the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise (‘AE') without considering the facts

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Philips India Limited Rajarhat 4A, 5Th Floor, Ecospace The Dcit Business Park, Premises A4 Ii, Circle 11(1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Town, Chakpachuria, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700156 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude the comparable in the case of Aurigene Discovery Technologies Ltd. Accordingly, the ground no.6 is allowed. 8. The issue raised in grounds no.7 and 8 is in respect of double disallowance of interest paid to MSMED of ₹55,226/- and double addition of deemed income

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No.8 and 9 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “8. Entrance fees, subscription and cost of facilities paid to clubs The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 1,332,749 being Pyment made to clubs. 9. Provision for replacement guarantee

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

transfer pricing adjustment is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No.8 and 9 raised by the assessee read as follows :- “8. Entrance fees, subscription and cost of facilities paid to clubs The Learned AO and DRP erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs. 1,332,749 being Pyment made to clubs. 9. Provision for replacement guarantee

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Transfer Pricing Officer resulted in the order passed u/s. 143(3) to be erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue. 6) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT failed to appreciate and understand that in the course of assessment proceedings; the AO had specifically considered the issue of making reference

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (IT)-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Transfer Pricing provisions and thereby rejecting the book results of the Project Office which were arrived at in consonance with Article 7(1) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and China read witt1 Article 5 thereof. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the adjustment of Rs 236,541,345 made by the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP vide impugned order

DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Transfer Pricing provisions and thereby rejecting the book results of the Project Office which were arrived at in consonance with Article 7(1) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and China read witt1 Article 5 thereof. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the adjustment of Rs 236,541,345 made by the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP vide impugned order

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Adjustment (in short “TPA”) for the transaction with the AEs at Rs. 15,75,54,541/- and disallowance of interest on TDS

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the instant appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Adjustment (in short “TPA”) for the transaction with the AEs at Rs. 15,75,54,541/- and disallowance of interest on TDS

M/S. BATA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

Transfer Pricing adjustment holding as under: "4.11. I have carefully considered the TPO's orders u/s 92CA dt. 0.12.06 on the basis of which the A. O. has disallowed the appellant's claim of royalty payment to Bata Canada. I have also perused the jurisdictional Tribunal order on this issue in the case of the appellant for Asst. years

DCIT, CIRCLE -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

Transfer Pricing adjustment holding as under: "4.11. I have carefully considered the TPO's orders u/s 92CA dt. 0.12.06 on the basis of which the A. O. has disallowed the appellant's claim of royalty payment to Bata Canada. I have also perused the jurisdictional Tribunal order on this issue in the case of the appellant for Asst. years

ALMATIS ALUMINA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, the instant appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

Transfer Pricing Adjustment (in short “TPA”) for the transactions with the AEs at Rs. 28,40,08,453/- and disallowance of interest on TDS

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS under section 194 on the reimbursement of salary of seconded I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 10 of 34 employees. Keeping in view these decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nagase India Pvt. Limited (supra) and Temasek

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers V/S. Acit, Circle-2(2), Pvt.Ltd., Block-Ep, Plot-Y-14, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Kokata-91 Kokata-69 [Pan No.Aabcp 9181 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 12-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata’S Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2017, Involving Proceedings Section 144C R.W. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Assessee Appellant’S First Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenge Correctness Of Transfer Price Adjustment Amounting To ₹345,51,562/- In Course Of Assessment As Pertaining To Its International Transactions With Its Overseas Associate Enterprise (Ae). This Assessee Is A Company Providing Consultancy Including Tax & Regulatory Services. It Filed Its Return On 30.11.2012 Stating Total Income Of ₹51,62,16,310/-. This Followed Its Revised Return Dated 31.03.2014 Reducing Its Taxable Income To ₹49,87,12,700/-. The Assessing Officer Took Up Scrutiny. He Came Across

transfer pricing adjustment back to the TPO for afresh adjudication. We therefore leave it open for him to adjudicate all factual as well as legal issues; as the case may be in consequential proceedings. The assessee’s former five substantive grounds to this effect are accepted for statistical purposes. 18. The assessee’s next substantive ground pleads that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

price contract and in terms of AS-7 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) made a provision for future foreseeable losses and claimed deduction of such a provision. The Revenue disallowed the provision made for such foreseeable losses. The Tribunal concurred with the stand of the assessee that such a provision was an allowable deduction. The relevant